About your Search

20130401
20130430
STATION
SFGTV 28
SFGTV2 9
CSPAN2 2
MSNBCW 2
CSPAN 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 43
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)
a standard which is in 3 parts section 3116 and section subsection d 5. the amendments addresses the importance of making sure that we have full notice of over-the-counter permits. i've added a new section 5 that says this ordinance will not become operate i have or until the the department has updated at any time website to provide an up to date information about the sequa organization and it holds a public hearing. the fifth set of amendments has to be with documentation as part of the appeals. i think we should keep it status go so that the appellant is not required to submit all where i live materials at the time the appeal is filed. the next is in addition to the type of notice that would be required by the online system there is new language for each project and to provide that information to the public in information on a website or a sequa decision. the effect would be not only to have planning effective planning to post information about every exemption that's not publically noticed. there's imply language that the type of project modification could occur if it needs add
of the planning code look first at subsection one and is this currently or last occupied by basic sales service. i acknowledge the history here is very murky but i think we have to go by what the legal use of the property is. what the c f c was received for and there is no since that date to my knowledge and that is it was a retail use which would be in a category basically of sales and service and promotion materials that were provided to the department showing the property for lease shows this advertised as a retail space. there is no reference of this being a restaurant or any other space previously. we are looking to these materials and how to evaluate the planning code and there is a reasonable interpretation that the last legal use certainly if we have a more broad interpretation of that and there is not a serving use, then this code no longer applies to them we would be encouraging to people who change their uses so they can convert to a restaurant use. so that seems like a reasonable interpretation on our part. there is subsection the, when we didn't get in our letter of determination to t
't highlight like you guys. on page 2 subsection c 1 it says no new fringe financial business be for use. but an existing one is allowed. it's permitted. >> under only the following provision which requires, but that's continuations of existing prohibited, fringe financial. the prohibited ones are the new ones. that's your interpretation. >> that's the way i interpret it. this continuations of existing prohibited fringe financial service uses. so the prohibition according to commissioner fong is the only prohibited fringe financial service uses are new ones. that's why they intended to let this forever. >> there is multiple fringe argued in the city. north of market is one also. i believe there is probably what, four or five, mr. sanchez, fringe financial rud's restricted use districts? >> if i'm out of order. >> you are out of order. >> i would equate it to when had a, let's take an example of a building that extended to the property line and the residential district. the rear property line. that at one time may have been allowed, but as a code change, that is now prohibited. therefore
attraction, a subsection. as more attractive to addressing people than addressing myself. it was not my objective desire, my own person. so i think that if i looked, the market inspire me. people different in it the streets or inspiring me. not what was fashion. maybe i was a finding something to were very inspiring. laurant. i like the ones that are different and have their own style. i like the ones that are different. they have style. i love them. so everyone that was different, i'd love it. i was not inspired by the jet set. at that time in 1960's, it was like very -- [unintelligible] for example, when i started to work, i am not all in the quatorze address. that is where some young girl -- among the young, i find more creativity, more interesting fashion in paris than in london. the sense of humor makes them to play more with the clothes and everything. in paris, i could see what was chic in what was not. one time i was working and was arriving at an industry job, and i was wearing boots. they looked at me and said, [unintelligible] as a reproach. i thought, ha ha, very funny. [lau
of this decision that you just made, are you issuing orders under subsection e or are you as required staff to prepare an order and you are authorized to sign that? >> yeah. you are right. >> i'm not sure if that all happened? >> we did in this. i think this order should be similar to the others in that we notified them of the violation and cease and desist of such contract in the future. any objection? >> no objection. >> the next item on the agenda are the minutes. >> mr. papal, that was part of the motion. you want a motion and a second on the order asking the staff to prepare a letter. you adopted a motion finding a violation, you want a motion directing the staff to issue a letter. >> okay. is there a motion to prepare a letter in accordance with what we've just described? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> david papal just that this letter should be aspect as possible because this is the first time we are going through this process and we want to be really sure that it's covering what the action that you took, some of the thinking, however you want this to appear in the fut
provided in subsection e which the the fringe financial service district there is a section on a continuations of fringe financial uses. it may i continue in accordance and again emphasizing in accordance with 186.2 and 186.1 allows for relocation of existing non-conforming use within the same district with cu authorization. so i believe that it is very clear what the path for relocating an existing non-conforming use. this section says for relocation you need a cu. the appellant through some nice latin tried to throw this with use district. in like they would like you to believe they are were adopted as separate legislation. the ordinance 70 -- 08 that established the control fringe for the financial. they are not actually part of the same piece of legislation and not part of the same section of the planning code. the section of the planning code that deals with this location, the fringe financial use district. this allows the non-conforming relocate to the non-conforming use district and they have not sought to a veil themselves which allows to relocate and they brought t
that seems like a reasonable interpretation on our part. there is subsection
that seems like a reasonable interpretation on our part. there is subsection the, when we didn't get in our letter of determination to the board does speak to a vacant space. that is for a period of 18 months. this contemplates a property that has been vacant. you can also already that this the building is vacant and it has no known last legal use because it's never been operated as a retail. you can also apply this provision of the code as well and say that a vacate space should not be converted to a restaurant. the intent of this was to make sure that sales and service uses are not converted and converted into restaurant uses but also those spaces which are vacated which may at one time been a restaurant. if they are vacated for more than 18 months, it can't be converted back to a restaurant. it's not only looking to preserve the existing but also to create the opportunity for new basic neighborhood sale and service uses because those are uses that are scene -- seen as not being adequate use because of bar and restaurant. >> i have a question, if the place was not used, what's the differ
. university policy manual, chapter four, subsection two: "mediation of interdepartmental disputes." (sighs) fine. dr. winkle, what colorful name did you call dr. cooper this time? dr. dumb-ass. dr. cooper dr. winkle apologizes. no, i don't. no, she doesn't. here's the problem. i was clearly signed up to use the mainframe in buckman 204 and dr. winkle just wantonly ripped the sign-up sheet off the wall. it wasn't even an official sign-up sheet. he printed it himself, and he put his name down on every slot for the next six months. sheldon: if it is a crime to ensure that the university's resources are not being squandered chasing subatomic wild geese then i plead guilty. (cell phone ringing) oh, penny! do you need to get that, dr. cooper? god, no. well, don't turn it off, you might miss your call from the nobel committee letting you know you've been nominated as dumb-ass laureate of the year. oh, yeah? well... you wouldn't even be nominated. dr. gablehauser, i have a series of important calculations and simulations to run. all she's doing is reducing irrelevant data (phone ringing) and makin
going about the business of collating these photos, right? >> a subsection of reddit. any can create a subsection and called "find the boston bombers." a few thousand people posting every kind of lead or photo they can find and pouring over it and trying to find who did it. >> the creator of the boston one, was very clear he did not want to condone vigilante justice. we don't condone vigilante justice and any personal information posted that can identify someone should be deleted. if somebody looks suspicious, it's sent to the fbi. we don't do anything but show their movement. the photos didn't just stay there. >> journalists all over read reddit. when this took off, people were paying attention to see what could these guys do because reddit has a reputation for being a force for good on the internet. people were like, can they do id? >> they're proud sourcing this. let me show the image of this 17-year-old we decided to blur out his face. this is the 17-year-old first identified i think in an reddit sub-thread and put on the "new york post" cover. do we have that image? we don't. >>
about the business of colatinging these photos, right? >> there was a subsection of readit. anyone can create a subsection called a sub readit and it was called find the boston bombers and a few thousand people posting every lead and photo they could find and pouring over it and trying to find who did it. >> the creator of the boston on the readit, said he didn't want to condone vigilante justice. di didn't put this up. worse-case scenario is we waste our time. of course the photos there isn't just stay there, right? >> right. journalists all over the internet read readit. as soon as this took off people were paying attention to see what they could do. readit has a reputation of being this force for good on the internechlt people like can they do it? it became this -- >> proud sourcing this. let me show the image of this 17-year-old. we have decided to blur his face. this is the 17-year-old who was first identified, i think in a readit sub thread and put on "the new york post" cover. do we have that image? we don't have that image. >> i think there's a difference between dkive work and
government. i'm reading from section 57 15, public testimony, the sunshine ordinance subsection b. a policy body shall not abridge or prohibit public criticism of the policy, procedures, programs, or services of the city, or of any other aspect of its proposals or activities or of the acts or omissions of the body on the basis that the performance of one or more public employees is implicated or on any basis other than reasonable time constraints adopted in regulation. members of this board of supervisors should truly be embarrassed by the fact that a citizen of san francisco has to read the law to you in order to make public comment without interruption. half of you purport to be lawyers. why don't you follow a law. on march 26th as i was addressing this board regarding the practices of your clerk, president chiu interrupted me. he did so without any good faith belief that my comments were inappropriate. he did so in violation of sunshine ordinance section i just read. despite stealing my time, interrupting my train of thought, and forcinging me to tell him something, he certainly knew, th
contains a typo in the subsection titled geography line 12 on page 3. it references and assesses 39 12, the correct block is 39 13. i'd also like to call to your attention two letters of support that have come into the planning department after your packets went out. one is from the mission bay citizens advisory committee. the other one is from the potrero boosters neighborhood association. i'll give those to the secretary for your review. as mentioned, planning staff recommends approval to the board of supervisors. the proposed types of map change to create the art and design educational special use district with the noted correction referencing assessor's block 39 13 lots 2 and 3. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. thank you. >> is project sponsor here? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm miguel [speaker not understood]. i like this overhead, thank you. my name is david meckel. i'm the director of campus planning for the california college of the arts. and i first want to thank supervisor cohen for her leadership and vision on sponsoring this legis
of the use of information shared with the federal government under subsection b of section 1104 of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3-a of this act including, a, a review of the use by the federal government of such information for a purpose other than a cybersecurity purpose. b, a review of the type of information shared with the federal government under such subsection. c, a review of the actions taken by the federal government based on such information. d, appropriate metrics to determine the impact of the sharing of such information with the federal government on privacy and civil liberties, if any. e, a list of the departments or agencies receiving such information. f, a review of the sharing of such information within the federal government to identify an appropriate stovepiping of shared information. and, g, any recommendations of the inspector general of the department of homeland security for improvements or modifications to the authorities under subsection. two, privacy and civil liberties officers report. the officer for civil rights and civil lib
of section 212-a-2. then subparagraph roman numeral two, section 212-a-3, paragraph roman numeral subsection 3, subparagraph a, c, d or e of section 212-a-10. so if i'm a united states senator and i'm trying to protect the interests of the people of the united states to understand what a piece of legislation means, i've got to go back and read every one of those subparagraphic exceptions. this is gobbledygook. my staff tells me every time you go back and read it, you see more -- more difficulties. i haven't even had a chance to look at this. and it's all through this piece of legislation. oh, but don't worry about it, we have set up a vision, we have got a vision of this great immigration bill that's going to be comprehensive, fix all our problems, trust us, don't worry about it. you'll find out what's in it later. right? just like health care, i guess. and this is not a way to do business. the immigration policy of the united states perhaps is as important as the health care policy of the united states. and i'm not going to consent to this. we're going to find out what's in it. it goes on,
? >> yes. >> thank you. we are now under oath and subject to penalties and title 18 subsection 001 of the united states code. you may now give a five-minute summary of your written statement. mr. cohen. >> thank you a good learning members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to tell you but sometimes accompt shirts are the past year. about us have been since the implementation of the affordable keratinocyte to describe progress we've made and how i know we are on track for open enrollment this october. we achieved a major milestone this month when we open the window for issuers to begin submitting plans to be sold to the federally facilitated marketplace. said that would happen april 1 and it did right on schedule. we've had an encouraging response and expect to see competition for millions of americans shopping for health insurance in the new marketplace. states operated in the marketplaces have begun accepting submissions from issuers as well. it's important to understand the ways we continue to improve our process is the window opened on april 1. it's gotten feedback
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)